UNIVERSITY PARK — About 4,000 students every year get more from their time at Penn State than just a diploma.

They leave with a notation of discipline on their transcript — often accompanied by a criminal record — that can haunt them as they apply for jobs, apartments, loans or grad school.

Some of those co-eds are even worse off. Their education gets derailed before they get their degrees by jail or disciplinary expulsion.

The office of judicial affairs works with local police, and often hands down a sentence separate from the court of law, and students who get into trouble often get a double whammy.

So, it’s a good idea to know the laws and the consequences before a good time turns into hard time.

Most people charged with lesser offenses, such as misdemeanors for DUI, simple assault, harassment or theft, are eligible for a probationary program called ARD — Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition.

If you complete the program, which lasts about a year, you can apply to have the charge wiped from your record.

But your academic record can still suffer. Punishments from the Office of Judicial Affairs can range from a warning or mandated counseling to suspension and expulsion.

For more serious crimes, students facing criminal charges could spend time on court probation, in county jail, or even at a state prison.

And don’t forget — just be cause a charge was expunged from your record, it doesn’t mean it never happened. News media routinely report court proceedings, and once something is on the Internet, it never goes away.

One quick search will unearth your past for anyone curious enough to Google your name.

Here’s what you can expect:

DUI: Most first-time DUI offenders are eligible for ARD. If you don’t qualify for ARD, or don’t complete the program, you could get a mandatory 72 hours in jail, depending on your blood alcohol level.

If you get ARD and are charged with DUI again within 10 years, that first DUI charge will count against you when you are sentenced. The sentence for a second DUI is five to 90 days in jail.

Plus, for even your first DUI arrest, the fines can run into the thousands of dollars, and you can expect to lose your driver’s license for any where from 30 days to 18 months.

UNDERAGE DRINKING AND OTHER SUMMARY OFFENSES: Summary citations are sort of like traffic tickets. They carry a fine and no jail time, but a judge can impose community service or counseling as part of a sentence.

Urinating in public, acting disorderly, being drunk in public and drinking underage can all get you fines, some up to $300.

In 2008, state law changed to allow summary citations to be expunged from your record after five years — with a catch: You can only have one. Otherwise they stick to your record just like any other crime.

FIGHTING: Bad temper? Keep your fists to yourself or you could be looking at hard jail time for this crime.

Causing serious bodily injury to someone is aggravated assault and could land you behind bars for three years to 20 years.

For simple assault, a less serious offense, you would probably get probation, or up to a month in county jail.

Many cases where a single punch is thrown are reduced to harassment citations that result in fines, or if the victim agrees, ARD.

DRUGS: From big-time dealing to passing a joint to a friend, having drugs on a college campus is a serious crime.

Cases of simply possessing personal amounts of marijuana, or a marijuana pipe usually end with ARD or probation.

But if you’re caught dealing drugs — even passing a joint to a friend — you’ll be charged with a felony, and if you take the case to trial, a judge could sentence you to a mandatory two years in state prison under a state law passed to discourage dealing near schools.

The law establishing tougher penalties for selling in school zones was written to punish people pedaling near kids, but it also includes universities. Most of downtown State College and all of the University Park campus are in a school zone.

Outside the school zone, selling less than 2.5 grams of cocaine or between two and 10 pounds of marijuana can have you eating jail food for at least a year while contemplating a $5,000 fine.

Beware, college students often get caught up in drug rings that span several states, with ring leaders who, if caught, are looking at decades in the slammer.

BURGLARY: It might seem like a cool prank to steal the deer heads from your rival frat. But breaking and entering is a felony that can send you to the slammer for one to two years if someone is home.

That also means that if you get too drunk, forget where you live and stumble into a family’s home, you’re looking at hard jail time.

Entering a home when no one is there means a minimum six months in the county jail.

If you’re lucky you can bargain that down to a criminal trespass charge, but that will still taint your record for future employers and landlords.

SEXUAL ASSAULT: Most sexual assaults on campus happen between acquaintances who meet through friends or at parties.

Many times, the defendants say alcohol was involved and they can’t remember what happened or they believe the sex was consensual.

Be aware that, under state law, an intoxicated woman cannot legally give consent. In 2006, a 22-year-old student was sentenced to three to six years in state prison for a sexual assault that happened after he says he blacked out. Many other cases end with plea agreements that still call for county jail time, and charge of indecent assault or aggravated indecent assault on your record. Those don’t look good on resumes.

STALKING: Recognize that the relationship is over and don’t have any more contact after being told no.

Stalking charges can result in probation. But if you get caught a second time, even if it is not the same victim, the crime becomes a felony and will result in a minimum of 90 days in jail.

You’ll also be required to attend months of classes to change your behavior — more time and money lost.

THEFT: Low on toothpaste and cash? Don’t steal. Most stores downtown are equipped with surveillance cameras to catch you in the act.

A first offense could end up as a summary charge, but a second retail theft charge will land you on probation, and a third could mean jail time.

Same goes for stray books in the library. Many can be tracked by the serial number, and if they are tracked back to you, it can mean trouble. The more expensive the item, the more severe the sentence.

Find a credit card that’s not yours?

Swipe it in the ATM and you can count on probation or jail time, depending on how much you steal. Up to $2,000 will get you a month behind bars.

FAKE ID: Dying to get into a bar underage? Try that in State College — where most bars are equipped with bar-code scanners — and you’re likely to get slapped with a charge of giving false information.

If you’re lucky, police will cite you with a summary, but they can charge you with a misdemeanor resulting in probation.

If you’re caught making or selling a fake ID, expect a misdemeanor charge and probation.

RIOT: Think twice before you climb a telephone poll to celebrate that Penn State win.

Most of the students charged with rioting after the football team’s 2008 win over Ohio State got a choice: Spend 30 days in jail and admit to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct, or get a sentence of probation and live with a felony record for the rest of your life.

VANDALISM: Punching a hole in a wall or pulling the fire alarm as a prank can land you on court supervision with a hefty bill of restitution. Most people charged with this crime never see a jail cell, but end up working a lot of hours to pay for damage.

CHEATING: Punishment for cheating, according to Penn State university code, can range from a warning to removal from a program. Cheating can be plagiarism, fabrication of information, facilitation of acts of academic dishonesty by others, unauthorized possession of examinations, submitting work of another person or work previously used without informing the instructor, and tampering with the academic work of other students.

From its beginning State College has been a college town welcoming students and embracing their traditions. That is why our fraternity district was built within a neighborhood where professors and their families lived, frequently with student tenants. Our downtown grew naturally across the street from Penn State.

Over time the increase of students outpaced the population of the town and now students outnumber permanent residents. This makes the once easy connection with students more difficult, sometimes impossible. Still, just about everybody who lives here has a proud connection to Penn State.

Student life commonly includes drinking. In the past few years, however, dangerous drinking has accelerated. Issues related to alcohol abuse threaten the high standard of living neighborhoods have traditionally enjoyed.

When town and gown are in sync, life is very good in Happy Valley. When town and gown are at odds, not so much.

The growing trend among students is to drink more hard liquor in dorm rooms and apartments before going to a party, and to get drunker. Too many drink with the intent of getting drunk. Blood-alcohol levels are at all-time, life-threatening highs and trips to Mount Nittany Medical Center are on the increase. Plus Facebook, cell phones and Twitter have exponentially expanded the possibility of adding strangers into the mix. All these indicators are pointing in the wrong direction.

The welcoming, small town community of State College, the opportunities at Penn State and outstanding work of many students are being overshadowed by the unacceptable behavior of a few thousand people. What a tragedy that Penn State and State College are becoming known in the media for binge drinking.

The happiest students I see are fully engaged in exploring their talents — journalism students calling me at midnight, engineering students working on a project, EcoAction members engaging all of us to celebrate Earth Day, demanding environmental change, etc. Students are an important part of our town and contribute their energy in many ways — as volunteers and athletes and through cultural and academic achievement.

Not surprisingly, students and nonstudents tend to live in different worlds. I recently was told that students love State College because it is perceived as a “safe bubble” where they don’t have to be afraid to walk home unaccompanied at 2 or 3 a.m. Ironically and tragically, it is about this time of day that others fear the most, because this is when vandalism, property damage, assaults and home invasions are on the rise.

These trends are unhealthy for the drinker, the neighborhoods and our town. Students in the process of becoming adults need to learn responsible drinking habits.

The mindless destructiveness of drinking has no place in our town. We are better than that. The destructive and dangerous behavior of insanely drunk people is destroying the fabric of our neighborhoods and sense of community.

The issue will take a long time to correct. Three interwoven issues must be addressed.

1. To keep State College a good place to live, everyone must feel this is their town, too.

Part of being an adult and a resident of State College is the responsibility to be respectful of fellow residents.

To have a happy life here, students must feel a personal connection to our town. Some students, especially freshmen, find university life overwhelming and are unable to cope. Getting drunk may seem like a solution. Other, better alternatives could emerge if students living in the borough felt they belonged here, were welcomed by members of our community and were treated with respect.

Look around our town and you will see the common foundation of our connection to this place and to each other. Many residents of State College either work at Penn State, are retired from Penn State or were students who stayed and now work for Penn State.

The majority of borough residents are students. At move-in time, residents of downtown neighborhoods can join the existing LION (Living in One Neighborhood) Walk initiated three years ago, or start their own welcome program.

Lion Walk has teams comprising a Penn State administrator (including Graham Spanier), a borough official, a police officer and a student, to personally welcome students at their doorstep. A neighborhood LION Walk could easily take this to the next, more personal level.

At our annual block parties, neighborhoods should feel encouraged and comfortable to invite their student neighbors, too.

Students need to be made aware of their rights and responsibilities. We want students to feel welcome and part of our town. Their ideas, energy and studies at Penn State are a big part of what makes State College a great college town.

2. There must be increased consequences for causing problems

There are consequences to all human activity; that is how we learn. Without appropriate consequences for destructive behavior there will be no change in the destructive behaviors that are afflicting our town.

Holding people accountable for their actions is part of the answer. Borough Council is now considering a series of ordinances to increase police focus on the people and properties that are repeat offenders. Another recommendation, not yet on the agenda, would require large party registration that also educates the host about how to hold a large party without causing harm to others.

State College is joining with other municipalities to lobby for a dramatic increase in fines for summary offenses (public drunkenness, etc.) These fines, set by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, have been unchanged for 30 years. Research shows increasing the consequences for illegal actions does change behavior.

The borough will continue to lobby for an alcohol tax to offset the enormous cost of enforcement (60 percent of all police offenses are alcohol related). Beer sales from package stores are limited to two six-packs per individual purchase, but the same person can purchase 50 quarts of Captain Morgan at the liquor store. Hard liquor sales could be limited, too.

Penn State has a special role to play, since it is the reason students are here and is the institution they look to for direction. Police cooperation between town and gown is excellent; citations for off-campus behavior are sent daily to campus Judicial Affairs for review.

In the eyes of most students, on-campus consequences for off-campus behavior is of greater concern than being arrested. Penn State could send a very strong message of deterrence by articulating and enforcing prescribed consequences for specific violations, in addition to its active role of intervention and education.

Penn State is also considering a proposal to make freshman dormitories substance free in fall 2010. Such a policy is a good first step in sending the message that alcohol is unnecessary for a complete college experience.

Students play an essential role in reducing alcohol-related crime. Breaking into someone’s home, destroying someone else’s property is not cool; it is disgusting. We must do whatever it takes to get this message across.

One way is to have student leaders participate in peer-to-peer panels and work in conjunction with local magistrates in alcohol-related cases, recommending appropriate community service. In some cases, the peer panel could meet with both the offender and the victim, providing feedback and recommendations to the court

3. Mitigating the environment that leads to binge drinking

Although a minority of students is responsible for creating the disgraceful acts causing such turmoil, we are all responsible for solving this problem

Let’s face it, nothing will change significantly until the students are on board, and we have a way to go. In March, student leaders spoke out asking for moderation and restraint. Meanwhile, while social-networking sites invited people to attend and news stories about State Patty’s Day went global. The result was a resounding failure for our town.

A broad spectrum of student leaders, elected officials, administrators and residents are actively engaged in discussions. The Penn State and State College communities are talking openly and honestly about the serious problems that result from dangerous drinking. The dialogue needs to continue and become another town-gown tradition.

People are complex. We are each capable of being very sensitive and totally insensitive. We can all learn from our actions. That is the critical issue we have to bank on. And there are signs of change: the Interfraternity Council voted for a dry Rush Week in January.

Surprising to some, the result was better than ever: more pledges than expected. The students who pledged said getting to know the fraternity members made them interested in joining. What’s next? Students can do a better job of looking out for each other — not allowing friends to drink so much that they get into trouble. This is true friendship.

Today’s students are unique. This age group — 19 to 29 — are known as “millennials.” Unlike their parents, the baby boomers, millennials have grown up in an increasingly affluent time. They are savvy consumers, barraged by advertisements offering electronics, clothes and alcohol that bring the promise of bring status and popularity.

Our neighborhoods are the mortar that holds our town together, providing the caring protection of people who look out for everyone. State College neighborhoods have a lot to share with their student neighbors, and vice versa, once we reconnect.

Alcohol-related offenses affect everyone. Similar problems of dangerous drinking on campus have increased nationwide, and Penn State is no exception. This makes our leadership on the issue even more important, more urgent. Although we must all work a bit harder to recapture the spirit of State College, it is worth it.

As mayor, I consider this is a top priority for our town.

Elizabeth Goreham, former president of State College Borough Council, took office as mayor in January.

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/2010/04/19/1921250/in-taking-leadership-stand-we.html#ixzz0lZxC0V9X

In Commonwealth v. Brigidi, the Superior Court held that the “explicit language of the enabling statute” requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate that the breath testing device be “calibrated and tested for accuracy within a period of time and in a manner specified by regulations of the Departments of Health and Transportation” in order to be admissible.  In this case, the Superior Court found that the Commonwealth’s failure to introduce calibration evidence was likely fatal, and remanded the case back to the trial court with direction to dismiss the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union told State College in a letter Friday that the borough’s proposed “nuisance gathering ordinance,” which is scheduled for a public hearing Monday night, violates the U.S. Constitution.

The ACLU letter, from staff attorney Valerie Burch to council President Elizabeth Goreham, says the ordinance’s “liability scheme … runs roughshod over and through well-established constitutional rights.” If the borough passes the ordinance, Burch says in the letter, the ACLU of Pennsylvania will entertain requests to challenge it in court.

Goreham said Saturday that the ACLU letter “casts a shadow over that ordinance and we really need to look for another way — this is apparently not the way.”

The proposed ordinance was modeled after similar ones adopted recently in two other college towns — Michigan State University’s hometown in East Lansing and Bloomsburg, home of Bloomsburg University, borough Police Chief Tom King told council.

The State College proposal says the host of a gathering of 10 or more people may be held in violation of law and subject to summary offense fines from $300 to $600, or 30 days in jail, if the gathering results in certain illegal activities at or within 100 feet of the location.

The illegal activities of party guests that would result in nuisance gathering ordinance violations by party hosts include: excessively loud noise; brawls, fights, quarrels, obscene conduct or other public disturbances; open containers; underage drinking; public drunkenness; public urination or public defecation; unlawful furnishing of intoxicating beverages; criminal mischief; sale of controlled substance; and lewdness.

The ACLU said the ordinance is “overbroad.” In criminalizing the hosting of gatherings that result in illegal activities, the ACLU says, the proposal prohibits constitutionally protected activities such as political and religious meetings that may inadvertently result in illegal activities.

As an example, the ACLU cites a pre-election meeting whose hosts could be found in violation if a political opponent stands outside the meeting, shouts noisily and litters the street with handbills.

“Such an ordinance chills the right to freely associate, protected by the First Amendment,” the ACLU letter says.

The ACLU also said the proposed ordinance violates the First Amendment by holding those who exercise First Amendment rights liable for the actions of others, and by trying to shift the costs of police services to the organizer of events.

“The First Amendment does not allow government to hold an event organizer categorically responsible for the actions of others … loosely resulting from the event,” the ACLU said.

The ACLU’s third problem with the proposal centers on the right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. By punishing the host, the ACLU says, “the ordinance holds responsible those who lack both intent to act illegally and a ‘responsible relation’ to the illegal actors.”

In an interview Saturday, Burch suggested it will take more than just language tweaking to erase ACLU concerns.

“You simply can’t criminalize someone for just having a party,” she said. “You just can’t make a law that violates the U.S. Constitution, and of course the Constitution trumps the borough of State College.”

Penn State student Brett Fisher, a candidate for council in Tuesday’s election, has criticized the proposed nuisance gathering ordinance for the very reasons cited by the ACLU.

Another ordinance scheduled for a public hearing at Monday’s council meeting would change the definition of “student home” in the borough codes to make it harder for single-family homes owned by students or students’ family members to rent rooms in the home to unrelated students.

Still another proposal would specify permit uses of former fraternity houses to include community or day care centers, homes for the elderly, nursing homes, medical clinics, offices or private schools.

Council does not plan to act on either of these ordinances Monday. Final consideration is scheduled for the Dec. 7 council meeting. For more information, go to www.statecollegepa.us. Mike Joseph can be reached at 235-3910.

Read more: http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1602036.html#ixzz0VdVPWdWU

NUISANCE GATHERING ORDINANCE

Be it ENACTED AND ORDAINED by the Borough Council of the Borough of State College, and it is hereby Enacted and Ordained by authority of same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Amend the State College Borough Codification of Ordinances, Chapter V. Conduct. To add a new Part J. Nuisance Gathering Ordinance, to read as follows:

PART  J

NUISANCE GATHERING

Section 1001. Purpose and Findings. The Borough of State College intends to preserve the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the residents and neighborhoods in the municipality by reducing the illegal behavior and conduct often occurring at events or gatherings that
seriously detracts from the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community.

The Borough of State College finds that:

a. Events and gatherings held on private or public property where persons gather and where Liquor or Malt or Brewed beverages are consumed and/or illegal controlled substances are used by persons attending such events or gatherings often results in disruptive, disorderly, destructive, violent, and hazardous conditions that constitute a threat to peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community that require prevention, response to, and/or abatement.

b. Often events and gatherings held on private or public property where persons gather and where Liquor or Malt or Brewed beverages are consumed and/or illegal controlled substances are used by persons attending such events or gatherings result in one or more of the following:

(1) Liquor or Malt or Brewed beverage-related or illegal controlled substance-related traffic crashes; or

(2) Liquor or Malt or Brewed beverage-related or illegal controlled substance-related injuries from falls and other accidents; or

(3) Overconsumption of Liquor or Malt or Brewed beverage requiring emergency medical treatment; or

(4)  Providing Liquor or Malt or Brewed beverage to persons under 21 years of age; or

(5)  Residents being awakened overnight from loud noises; or

(6)  Violent outbursts that result in physical injury to persons; or

(7)  Residents having their property damaged or stolen.

c. These events and gatherings that become unlawful public nuisances result in an inordinate amount of police service resources deployed to these events or gatherings resulting in additional costs to the Borough of State College taxpayers. Because of these inordinate costs, it is necessary to recover the police service costs for certain unlawful public nuisances.

Section 1002. Authority. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to XXXXXXXX

Section 1003. Definitions. For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms have the following meanings:

Event or gathering. Event or gathering means any group of three (3) or more persons who have assembled or gathered together for a social function or other activity on public or private property whether indoors or outdoors.

Host.    Host means to aid, conduct, allow, entertain, organize, supervise, control, or overtly permit a gathering or event.

Liquor. Liquor as defined by Title 18 – Pennsylvania Crimes Code Section 6310.6

Malt or brewed beverages. Malt or brewed beverages as defined by Title 18 — Pennsylvania Crimes Code Section 6310.6

Person. Person means any individual, partnership, co-partnership, corporation, or any association of one or more individuals.

Police Service Costs. Police Service Costs means the cost to the Borough of State College for police services rendered in responding to a call at a nuisance gathering or otherwise maintaining order and public peace and safety and stopping public disturbances at a nuisance
gathering, including, but not limited to, the salaries and other compensation of police officers, appropriate administrative costs allocable thereto, the cost of repairing damaged Borough of State College equipment and property, and the cost of any medical treatment of injured police officers. The cost for salaries and other compensation of police officers plus the administrative costs shall be established annually by the Borough of State College Finance Department. Cost of
repairing damaged equipment and the cost of any medical treatment of injured police officers shall be based on actual costs.

Premise. Premise means any home, yard, fraternity house, farm, field, land, apartment, condominium, hotel or motel room, or other dwelling unit. or a hall or meeting room, park, or any other place of assembly,public or private, whether occupied on a temporary or permanent basis, whether occupied as a dwelling or specifically for a party or other social function, and whether owned, leased, rented, or used with or without permission or compensation.

Underage Person. Underage person is any individual under twenty-one (21) years of age.

Section 1004. Declaration of nuisance gathering. An event or gathering that results in one or more of the following illegal activities at a premise or on neighboring public or private property is hereby declared to be an unlawful public nuisance as defined herein:

a.  Excessive, unnecessary, or unreasonably loud noise which does or is likely to disturb the comfort, quiet, or repose of the neighborhood  (Section 5503 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code – Title 18) and/or (Chapter V, Part A, Section 103 of the Borough of State College
Codification of Ordinances); or

b.  Public disturbances, brawls, fights, or quarrels or Indecent or obscene conduct (Section 5503 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code – Title 18); or

c.  Open container – (Chapter V, Part C., Section 302 c. of the Borough of State College Codification of Ordinances); or

d.  Purchase, consumption, possession, or  transportation of Liquor or Malt or Brewed beverages (Section 6308 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code -Title 18); or

e.  Public drunkenness (Section 5505 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code – Title 18); or

f.  Public urination or defecation (Section 5503 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code – Title 18); or

g. Unlawful sale, furnishing, or consumption of intoxicating beverages (Section 6310.1 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code – Title 18); or,

h. Unlawful deposit of trash or litter – Section 6501 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code (Title 18); or

I. Criminal mischief (Section 3304 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code -Title 18); or

j. Sale, manufacture, possession of any controlled substances as defined in The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act” Act of 1972, P.L. 233, No. 64; or

k.  Open lewdness or indecent exposure (Section 5901 or Section 3127 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code – Title 18); or

1.  Other illegal conduct or condition which injures, or endangers the safety, health, or welfare of the neighborhood.

Section 1005. Prohibited Act. Any premise owner, occupant, tenant, or other person having any possessory control, individually or jointly with others, of any premise who sponsors, conducts, hosts, invites, or overtly permits an event or gathering that at any time of the event or gathering to become an unlawful public nuisance as defined in Section 4 is hereby deemed to have committed a violation of this section.

Section 1006. Penalty for violation.

(a) Any person who violates Section 5 is guilty of a summary offense punishable a fine of not less than $300 nor more than $600 or by imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both.

(b) For a second or subsequent violation of Section 5 in a l2-month period, the person is guilty of a summary offense punishable by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both.

(c) A criminal penalty provided for under subsections (a) and (b) of this section may be imposed in addition to any penalty that may be imposed for any other criminal offense arising from the same conduct.

Each act of violation and every day upon which such violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense.

Section 1007. Payment for Police Service Costs Required. Any premise owner, occupant, tenant, or other person having any possessory control, individually or jointly with others, of any premise who sponsors, conducts, hosts, invites, or overtly permits an unlawful public nuisance
event or gathering shall pay the police service costs for the response, investigation, documentation, and prosecution of the second and any subsequent unlawful public nuisance events or gatherings within a 180 day period of time.

Section 1008. Notice of Police Service Costs. Whenever the police are called to respond to and declare a property in violation of this ordinance, a representative of the Police Department shall notify the owner of the private property where the nuisance gathering took place
and also the Person in Charge (PIC) of such property if the owner has designated a “PIC” in accordance with the Borough of State College’s Property Maintenance Code (Chapter IV, Part L, Section 1204, Chapter 9, Section 901.2), by regular mail at the last known address of such owner
and/or Person in Charge. This notification will include at a minimum that the police identified a nuisance gathering at the owner’s property and that if the police are again called to respond to a nuisance gathering at such property within 180 days after their initial response, such owner shall be required to pay police service costs to the Borough of State College for such responses.

Section 1009. Collection of Police Service Costs. For the second and all subsequent responses to unlawful public nuisance events or gatherings within 180 days as provided for in Section 7 of this Ordinance, the Chief of Police or his/her duly authorized designee shall notify the Borough of State College Finance Department in writing of the name and address of the owner of the private property where the nuisance gathering took place, the dates of the initial and subsequent
response(s), and necessary details related to the billable costs as listed in Section 3, (f) for the subsequent response. The Borough of State College Finance Director or his/her duly authorized designee shall then bill the owner for the appropriate amount and which shall be due and payable to the Borough of State College within thirty (30) days of such billing.

Section 1010. Failure to Pay Police Service Costs. Any police service costs which have not been paid within thirty (30) days of the billing therefore maybe collected, together with a penalty of ten percent (10%) thereof and interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum added thereto, by civil action against the owner and/or may be imposed or assessed against the owner’s private property as a municipal claim as provided by law.

Section 1011. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or other portion of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional or invalid, in whole, or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed severable, and such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, which remaining portions shall continue in full force and effect.

SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its final passage and adoption.

The raid by state police on a party at Haverford College and the “College Enforcement Initiative” cited in part as the raid’s cause have put many members of the college community on edge. Many questions have emerged to order the confusion generated from that raid: What is the College Enforcement Initiative? Why did the state police target Haverford? Will they target Swarthmore? What can be done to prevent that?

Sgt. William La Torre of the Liquor Control Board notably indicated that the raid was one of many measures planned under the aegis of the College Enforcement Initiative, which entails an enhanced enforcement focus on underage drinking at colleges. La Torre, Commander of the district office for Delaware, Chester, and Philadelphia counties, said that the purpose of that initiative is to “get the word out” on college campuses about the penalties for underage drinking.

The goal of the program, said La Torre, is to make a series of highly visible alcohol “busts” at various colleges and universities in the area, especially during September and October. The hope is that students will realize “what the penalties are” and then be able to “make an informed decision” about whether to drink.

“The legislators of Pennsylvania have deemed that if you’re under 21, you shouldn’t drink… All I can do is enforce the laws on the books. With respect to whether they break the law in private or in public, either way they’re breaking the law.”

Though a report from the Liquor Control Board described the initiative [page 96; file is a 900kb PDF] as “a cooperative program with local and university law enforcement agencies,” during the raid at Haverford neither township police nor Haverford’s Safety & Security department were notified until the raid was under way. Their counterparts at Swarthmore, Chief Brian Craig of the Swarthmore borough police and Owen Redgrave of Public Safety, both said that the state police would be under no obligation to contact either organization were a similar raid to occur at Swarthmore.

In an interview with the Gazette, La Torre said that normally, his office works “hand-in-hand” with schools’ law enforcement agencies. In the Haverford incident, however, he cited two mitigating factors. One was that Haverford Safety & Security department, like Swarthmore’s Public Safety, is not a police agency. Although certain members of the department may be sworn police officers, the department falls entirely under the purview of the college administration. La Torre called that “really atypical;” larger schools generally handle their security through full police departments.

Moreover, the anonymous tipster at Haverford claimed that the administration was intentionally “turning a blind eye” towards underage drinking on campus, and by extension, campus security. Because La Torre’s office “didn’t know whether that allegation was true,” they wanted to “maximize the element of surprise” and so waited until arriving to contact Safety & Security. (Upon later investigation, La Torre said that his office “didn’t see any evidence” that the administration was behaving irresponsibly.)

If the department receives a tip or requests for help from anyone, they will look into it, as they did in the Haverford incident. In those situations, La Torre said that his unit “does a full investigation, using all resources available”—including Facebook. “We look for events that are advertised as occurring,” he said, “and then investigate further.”

The Swarthmore Police Department’s policy is based on strict enforcement of the law. Chief Craig said, “When we become aware of [underage drinking], we do enforce” the relevant laws. Yet although the College campus is on their regular patrol routes, the “primary purpose of [those] patrols is the safety of everyone involved… they’re not specifically for underage drinking enforcement.” He said that Swarthmore police “do not go in buildings unless we have a specific call or need to do that.” His main concern with the issue, historically, has been that “the College handles things the way they’re supposed to,” especially with respect to local high school students showing up to College parties.

In the Haverford raid, students were only cited for underage drinking—no one was charged with the misdemeanor of providing alcohol to a minor. La Torre said that this is not true of all of his department’s activities at colleges. When it’s clear who is furnishing the alcohol, he said, as when “an undercover officer pays his $5 and gets his cup” for beer at a frat party, the officers may attempt to detain individuals identified as the providers first.

Some commentators have also taken note of the fact that the party at Haverford was outside, which is a legally distinct situation from if it was inside a college-owned (or private) building. La Torre verified that the distinction is sometimes meaningful, but wanted to dispel the notion that indoor spaces are completely off-limits from the police. “In many situations we would need a warrant,” he said, but “there are also many circumstances that would not require a warrant.” The observation of any crimes occurring “within plain view,” or when there are “exigent circumstances regarding someone’s health or welfare,” would fall into the latter category of circumstances.

In Assistant Director for Student Life Kelly Wilcox’s estimation, the Haverford raid has “added credibility to” efforts undertaken by the Dean’s Office to provide support for students on the issue of alcohol. After the raid, Wilcox sent an e-mail out to party hosts, PAs, and RAs reminding them that “it is really in student’s best interests to have party permits” so that both the administration and Public Safety are aware of events and their individual concerns, and so that the College can better respond to problems that may arise at any given event. Wilcox informally estimated that “within 24 hours” of the Haverford raid, the number of students coming for party permits for events small and large “increased 3-fold.”

With regards to the safety of Swarthmore parties, Wilcox also emphasized the role of the Party Associates in checking IDs, marking hands of students of age, managing guest sign-in, regulating crowd control, enforcing the terms of a given party permit, looking out for overly intoxicated students, and serving as first responders for incidents at parties. (Background reports to the Gazette indicate that, for the vast majority of weekend events occurring these past two weeks, Party Associates were on-site at parties checking IDs and enforcing entrance policies.)

“That [the Dean’s Office’s style] is to educate and to be a resource… is pretty unique to this campus, and it’s one of our strongest traits,” Wilcox said. She cited an example of a recent conversation wherein a student contacted her directly with concerns that drinks at a particular party had been mixed with high-proof grain alcohol that led partygoers to significantly underestimating their alcohol consumption. Wilcox used her party-permit records to contact the host of that party. “Within 5 minutes,” the former host had responded to Wilcox to address her remarks, and indicated the specific measures they would take to resolve said concern at future events they would host.

“I really appreciated the fact that a student felt comfortable enough to share their concern… and the willingness of the host to communicate,” Wilcox said. “I wasn’t interested in adjudicating, I was interested in moving forward, in going ‘here on out, how can I make this event safe?’ … No student on campus should be surprised by what’s in their drink.”

Wilcox also emphasized that while the administration is not tolerant of lawbreaking occurring at parties hosted on-campus, that their primary focus with regards to underage drinkers is their safety. “Don’t hesitate to ask seek help: any ramifications of a citation or anything else would be minor compared to ensuring someone’s safe, healthy, and being taken care of,” Wilcox said.

Student conversation has concentrated in part on the question of whether Swarthmore will be targeted, and, if so, when. A member of DU said that last weekend’s Toga Party saw “noticeably fewer” attendees than it had in past years, though there were still “a decent amount of people” who showed up. He attributed that decline to rumors that the police might be conducting a raid on Saturday night. Although to his knowledge there was no reason to think that DU in particular might be targeted, “a lot of people were worried that the cops were coming” to DU. “These things kind of take a life of their own,” he said. “There was an email from the Worth RAs, and then that circulated.”

Indeed, an email sent this past weekend to residents of the Worth dormitory by the Worth RAs warned students to be especially cautious of many activities on Saturday night in particular, especially those involving drinking outside or transporting alcohol across campus, and advised students to contact the DART team should they have any alcohol-related issues over the weekend. Although many RAs sent emails to their halls with similar warnings, the Worth email was circulated widely around campus by residents. The email stated that a member of the administration had told them there was “reason to believe that we should be extremely vigilant this weekend,” which led the RAs to write that they believed “we will likely be targeted this weekend.”

“It’s important that we comply and do these little things to keep each other safe… We don’t want to give the state police a reason to cite 30+ students,” the RAs stated in their e-mail. Despite fears to the contrary, no such “raids” occurred this weekend. However, two students were hospitalized showing symptoms of alcohol poisoning this past Friday, and both were cited for drinking while underage.

The forum held in Marshall Auditorium on Friday evening, September 4, provided an opportunity for students to air some of their questions about legal issues arising in the wake of the previous night’s State Police “alcohol awareness” raid on an indoor-outdoor party at Lloyd Hall. As career criminal defense lawyers and longtime friends of Haverford College (one of us an alum from the Class of 1971 and the other an experienced local attorney for many arrested students over the last decade), we were invited to participate in the forum as legal resources. This op-ed shares some of what we had to say. The reader must understand, however, that all of the information in this column is necessarily very general and superficial; it is no substitute for individual, confidential legal counseling, tailored to the facts and circumstances of a particular person’s situation.

To begin at the beginning, police do not violate the United States or Pennsylvania Constitution when they enter the areas of a campus which are open to the general public. Likewise, police do not violate any law when they wear plain clothes and enter a place without identifying themselves as police, provided an authorized person welcomes them in. (Nor do police violate any constitutional or statutory limits if they peruse the internet and read public Facebook pages!) And if police, being in a place they are allowed to be, reasonably suspect that “criminal activity,” including underage drinking and the furnishing of alcohol to minors, is “afoot” (to quote the Supreme Court), they have authority under the Fourth Amendment to “detain” the particular suspected individual briefly at the scene—short of a full custodial arrest—to investigate that “suspicion.” If detaining a large number of individuals, the police may seek to ensure their own safety by controlling where people can be, including requiring them to sit down and stay put. Failure to comply could easily lead to arrest, although whether the charges would be pursued later by the district attorney is a different question. A person who has not been told s/he is being detained, on the other hand, has an absolute right to simply walk away—but preferably not run—from the scene.

How should students behave in this situation? You already know the answer, right? A respectful and nonviolent attitude is almost always the best policy. The use of the word “Sir” or “Ma’am” usually goes a long way; it expresses respect for the (temporary) authority of the officer who is doing his or her job, as that officer understands it. The time to dispute whether the police are following the law and Constitution—if it seems to you they are not—is later, after you have talked to a lawyer, who can argue legal points for you before a judge. You will never change the mind of a police officer in the field by trying to explain why you are right and s/he is wrong about the law governing police-citizen interactions. If the judge later rules that the police acted unlawfully, then evidence they secured as a result of that violation ordinarily cannot be used in court.

Do you have to answer questions? No, because the Fifth Amendment guarantees your right not to be compelled to “be a witness against” yourself—that is, to provide any evidence that may tend to incriminate you, which in an underage drinking situation clearly includes your age, class year, or date of birth. What about that Miranda Rule you’ve heard of? According to the Supreme Court, if you are “in custody” — that is, not free to leave (whether under arrest or not) — and a police officer asks you questions without warning you first that you have a right to remain silent, that you may have a lawyer with you before answering any questions, and that anything you say may be used against you as evidence, then anything you do say should not be useable against you in court. Failure to give the warning, however, does not require the case to be dropped. If the police don’t foresee using your on-the-scene statements as evidence later, they have no particular incentive to give the warnings. And if you “volunteer” information (that is, speak without “interrogation”) or you are not “in custody,” then anything you say may be used against you, even if the police officer did not read you the Miranda rights.

Are you required to give any information to the police? Police can ask you to identify yourself, but in a non-driving situation you do not even have to produce identification (nor do you have any legal obligation to carry ID) and in fact Pennsylvania has no law requiring that you even answer a request for identification. But if you refuse, in a situation where there is already reasonable suspicion—as a judge might conclude there was, if you are a young-looking person seen carrying a beer cup at a wide-open party advertised as being primarily about drinking alcohol—you can expect to be held until your identity and age are ascertained and verified.

All things considered, you should probably agree to identify yourself but then say that you will not answer any other questions until after you have talked to a lawyer—our suggestion is that you tell the officer that this is the instruction you have from your parents. The police have been trained to use psychological techniques to get you to answer questions, perhaps by telling you it will go easier for you or that s/he’ll have to take you to the police station, or by accusing you of trying to be “too smart.” Remember that police are not required to tell you the truth, and that they are not on your side and are not actually trying to give you good advice, no matter how they make it seem. You will probably be best off repeating that you want to talk to a lawyer first, please. But don’t raise your voice or display a hostile attitude.

Police in Pennsylvania do not have authority to require anyone who has not been driving to take a breathalyzer test. However, when they ask for consent, they do not have to tell you this, or to make it clear you can refuse.

What if the police want to come into your dorm room? Unlike public areas of the campus, dorms are not generally open to anyone who cares to enter and so are not freely open to the police. Most likely, they will first seek “voluntary consent,” which can validly be given by any authorized person (a resident or administrator). Again, the law does not require the police to mention that consent can be refused without adverse consequences. They can only demand entry (even by force) only if (1) they have a search warrant or (2) there is probable cause to believe that a crime is then being committed and truly “exigent circumstances” make it impossible to seek and wait for a judicial warrant.

What are “exigent circumstances”? We cannot give a complete list, but hearing someone screaming that they are being hurt, or sounds indicating the imminent destruction of evidence are typical examples. But the mere fact that a loud party is going on would not give police authority to come into a dorm room or suite without being granted consent to enter. Usually it is best if a police officer asks to search your room (or your car, if stopped on the highway) to say, firmly and politely, “No, thank you.”

Individuals cited for underage drinking are not arrested, and do not acquire a criminal record, but must answer the charges in court unless they work out a “diversion” arrangement with the police and/or district attorney for a promise of good behavior, with community service. The decision whether to fight a citation or seek a diversion—which can result in the arrest being expunged sooner, but carries some burdensome costs—can best be made after a private consultation with a lawyer who is familiar with Pennsylvania laws and with the practices of the local district judges, police and prosecutors.

Penn State Altoona freshman Acacia Kelley has a good idea how an underage drinking citation could affect her life.  School expulsion, future career plans, the 18-year-old rattled off as she balanced a laptop on her legs while sitting on a campus bench Wednesday afternoon.

“My mom wouldn’t be too happy with me,” she said. “I try to be smart about that stuff.”

Beside criminal charges and disappointed parents, college students caught drinking while under age also face consequences at school.

After Logan Township Police broke up a party Aug. 25 on Woomer Road, more than 35 Penn State Altoona students are doing just that.

Logan Township Police Chief Ron Heller said only three arrests were made during the first two weeks of school last year.

Residents in the area of Woomer Road made complaints about the college crowd’s partying and police plan to “take an aggressive stand,” he said.

“They call us, we will respond and take action,” Heller said.

Penn State Altoona’s head of judicial affairs Jay Burlingame said 90 percent of the cases he sees involve alcohol to some degree.

“It’s obviously a part of our society,” he said.

Burlingame said the campus wants to help students “learn from their mistakes.”

Every student offense is considered on a case-by-case basis, Burlingame said. A warning letter sent to the student for a minor infringement such as walking down the street with a beer in hand is customary, he said. Logan Township and campus police notify the parents of students who are under 21, but city police only notify the parents of students under 18, Burlingame said.

A blood-alcohol level of more than 0.15 percent lands a student in the judicial affairs office no matter what, he said.

PSU does not apply a three strikes rule but does have a zero tolerance policy, meaning the school does “not ignore the behavior,” he said.

According to the school’s Web site, students can face educational sanctions such as participating in an alcohol education program or performing community service. Administrative sanctions include a warning, probation and suspension.

After an offense, students are not restricted to how many credits they can take.

How effective sanctions are is up to each student, but return offender rates are “fairly low,” he said.

“The majority of our students don’t get into trouble,” he said, adding that 80 to 90 percent of students never end up in his office.

In 15 years, only one student has had an expulsion, where he or she was not allowed to ever enroll in a Penn State institution again, Burlingame said.

Last year, 200 students completed a campus intervention program, Burlingame said. The AWARE program is an alcohol and drug intervention program with three severity levels. The most severe deals with students who have major problems such as a driving under the influence charge or are at a high risk for alcohol poisoning, according to the school’s Web site.

If a student completes the AWARE program after a referral from either his office, a magisterial district judge or in rare cases themselves, underage drinking charges are dismissed. A student still will receive a 90-day license suspension, which PennDOT might later remove, Burlingame said.

“We try to make it as educational as possible,” Burlingame said of school response.

In 2008, Penn State began requiring incoming freshmen to complete AlcoholEDU for College, an online alcohol prevention program, before coming to campus. The online program is aimed at raising awareness and promoting appropriate use of alcohol.

Mount Aloysius College Student Affairs Vice President Jane Grassadonia stated in an e-mail that besides parent notification, underage students caught drinking the first time face a fine, and the college’s counseling services evaluate and assess the student.

“Repeated violations result in referral to the Student Conduct Board for review of loss of housing and an individual’s status at the college,” she wrote.

Since 2008, no Mount Aloysius student has faced underage drinking charges, Grassadonia stated.

“We call parents,” St. Francis University Vice President of Student Development Frank Montecalvo said. “We call parents the first time.”

No drinking is permitted in residence halls, he said.

Besides a call home to mom and dad, a first offense at St. Francis results in counseling, probation and community service.

A student on disciplinary probation cannot play sports, and he or she can lose scholarships, Montecalvo said.

Drinking can lead to a downward spiral for students, but they can learn from each other, he said.

Parents play a role, as well.

“More than ever, parents are getting it,” he said. He said parents are partnering with the school. “That’s the partnership that would frame success.”

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY FILED: July 27, 2009

The Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT)

appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County (trial

court) which sustained the appeals of Sean Robert Guinan (Guinan) from two

consecutive ninety day suspensions¹ of his driver’s license pursuant to Section

1532(d) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa.C.S. §1532(d).² The trial court ordered

that the two ninety day suspensions be served concurrently.

¹ The trial court consolidated the appeals for hearing but issued two separate orders. DOT appealed each order.  This Court consolidated the two appeals.

² Section 1532(d) of the Code states in pertinent part as follows:

The department shall suspend the operating privilege of any person upon receiving a certified record of the driver’s conviction, adjudication of delinquency or admission into a preadjudication program for a violation under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6307 (relating to misrepresentation of age to secure liquor or malt or brewed beverages), 6308 (relating to purchase, consumption, possession or transportation of liquor or malt or brewed beverages) or 6310.3

(Footnote continued on next page…)

By official notice dated July 15, 2008, DOT informed Guinan that his operating privilege was suspended for ninety days effective August 19, 2008, as a result of his violation of Section 6310.3 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. §6310.3, (relating to carrying a false identification card) on June 14, 2008. Also, by official notice dated July 15, 2008, DOT informed Guinan that his operating privilege was suspended for ninety days effective November 17, 2008, as a result of his violation of Section 6308 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. §6308, (relating to underage drinking) on June 14, 2008. Guinan appealed both suspensions to the trial court.

 At a de novo hearing, DOT introduced a packet of documents certified by the Director of the Bureau of Driver Licensing.  The packet contained the official notices of suspensions; the reports of a court ordering the suspensions; and Guinan’s driving record. Guinan challenged the length of the suspensions. His attorney argued that the two ninety day suspensions should be concurrent rather than consecutive. DOT’s attorney argued that the trial court did not have the discretion to make the suspensions concurrent.

The trial court ordered DOT to reinstate the suspension of Guinan’s operating privileges and ordered the two suspensions to run concurrently for a total period of ninety days. The trial court reasoned:

(continued…)

(relating to carrying a false identification card).  The duration of the suspension shall be as follows:

(1) for a first offense, the department shall impose a suspension for a period of 90 days.

Under the fair reading of the statute it appears that the Court has the discretion as to whether or not the suspension shall read consecutive or concurrent and the Court in the exercise of that discretion determined that basic fairness required that the two ninety (90) day suspensions run concurrent for a total of ninety (90) days.

Trial Court Opinion, February 27, 2009, at 2; Reproduced Record at 53a.

DOT contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it ordered the suspensions to run concurrently because DOT is required to impose all operating privilege suspensions consecutively.³

DOT asserts that under Section 1544 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §1544(b), prohibits concurrent suspensions. Section 1544(b) of the Code provides:

(b) Additional suspension.—When any person’s record shows an additional suspension of the operating privilege assessed during a period of suspension or revocation, the department shall extend the existing period of suspension or revocation for the appropriate period and the person shall be so notified in writing.

In Xenakis v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 702 A.2d 572 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), this Court addressed a similar factual situation. Markos Jason Xenakis (Xenakis) was convicted on October 4, 1995, for violating Sections 6307, 6308, and 6310.3 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. §§6307, 6308, and 6310.3. Section 6307 relates to misrepresentation of age to secure

3

This Court’s review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion.  Department of Transportation v. Renwick, 543 Pa. 122, 669 A.2d 934 (1996).

liquor, malt, or brewed beverages.  Sections 6308 and 6310.3 are the same sections

that Guinan violated. For each conviction, Xenakis received a notice from DOT

that his operating privilege was suspended for a ninety day period. Xenakis

appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.  Xenakis argued

that because each conviction arose from the same incident that only one ninety day

suspension was warranted under Section 1532(d) of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S.

§1532(d). Xenakis also argued that he had already served one hundred twenty

days of a suspension. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County sustained

the appeal and determined a single ninety day suspension was proper because the

charges arose from a single incident and Xenakis had already served his

suspension. Xenakis, 702 A.2d at 573-574.

DOT appealed to this Court and contended that under Section 1532(d)

of the Code it was required to impose a ninety day suspension for each conviction.

Xenakis, 702 A.2d at 574. This Court agreed and reversed:

Section 1532(d) further provides that the term of suspension for a first offense is 90 days; one year for a second offense; and two years for a third or subsequent offense. The section also provides that multiple suspensions are to be served consecutively.

Licensee [Xenakis] was convicted of three separate offenses related to an incident that occurred on September 27, 1995.  Separate 90-day suspensions are warranted where each offense is characterized separately and none of the offenses are lesser-included offenses of the others. . . . . . . . Licensee [Xenakis] violated Section 6307 of the Crimes Code when he presented himself to a licensed dealer, distributor or other person and falsely represented that he was 21 years of age or older in order to obtain alcoholic beverage. Licensee [Xenakis] violated Section 6308 when, among other things, he purchased and consumed an alcoholic beverage. He violated Section 6310.3 by carrying an identification card that falsely identified the name, age, date of birth or photograph of Licensee [Xenakis] as being 21 years of age or older.  Different offers of proof are required to convict under each of the offenses, which by their terms are separate and distinct. . . . . Here, DOT did not use an enhancement provision but instead imposed a first offense 90-day suspension for each violation. Each conviction arising from a separate act merits punishment . . . and under Section 1544(b) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1544(b), all suspensions imposed upon a licensee’s operating privilege are to be served consecutively. . . .

. . . . Because Licensee was convicted for three separate and distinct violations of the Crimes Code, DOT had the authority to impose consecutive 90-day suspensions. (Citations omitted).

Xenakis, 702 A.2d at 574-575.

Similarly, in Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver

Licensing v. Gonzalez, 543 A.2d 231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988), this Court held that

suspensions for two DUI convictions could not be served concurrently because

Section 1544 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §1544, required that mandatory periods of

suspension be served consecutively.

Here, Guinan was convicted of two offenses which this Court in

Xenakis determined were separate not lesser included offenses.  This Court has

consistently held that two separate offenses necessitate two periods of suspension.

This Court has further determined that under Section 1544(b) of the Code, 75

Pa.C.S. §1544(b), these suspension periods must be served consecutively and not concurrently. Consequently, the trial court erred when it ordered that DOT apply the suspensions concurrently.

Accordingly, this Court reverses.

BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge